It's an interesting explanation, but I'm having a lot of trouble buying it.
My Myth box has a PS/2 keyboard connector, as well as several USB ports. I can easily connect a keyboard to it. If my remote control were to stop working for any reason, I'd still be able to control the system. I notice that the Alienware Media Center systems all have USB ports, too.
Given that they had set up a USB-based IR receiver with a powered USB booster, surely they were aware of the fact that relying on IR could be tricky. It's very difficult to believe that no one thought it might be a good idea to have some kind of backup input device that someone off stage could have used to kick off the damn slide show.
From the FA: "Sure, we could have had two Media Centers, but we wanted to show it all running off the same Media Center as a hub." This strikes me as classic misdirection. Like it would be utterly impossible to have one Media Center with two different input devices.
As I see it, either something more went wrong and this story was concocted to cover it up, or the whole team behind the presentation deserves to be fired for missing something so pitifully obvious.
I rather suspect the former.
I did enjoy watching Bill sit there all hunched over in his big cushy chair pecking away at the remote control. His plastic smile unwavering, even through Conan's "who's in charge of Mircosoft" comment. And then that weird comment about only having one remote control? No, Bill, it wouldn't be worse to have serveral remote controls, if they were for devices that actually *worked*.
I run Debian Stable on a very modern server, with >2GB RAM, Fusion-MPT SCSI, gigabit ethernet and all that good stuff. It's just a matter of using a newer kernel than Woody's default.
I want the distribution to be stable, but I don't mind keeping the kernel up to date myself. With make-kpkg, it's a snap to build Debian packages out of kernel.org tarballs and, on this machine, it just takes a few moments.
(And yes, if this really was a mission critical server, and not just a department build machine, I'd build and test my kernels elsewhere before deploying them, but that's not the point.)
I just picked up a copy of the NYT from my local news stand. Seeing the PDF is one thing, but seeing it in the paper is *very* cool.
The full, two-page spread makes it stand out (there are a lot of ads in the paper!). It's also remarkable in that it's simply and clearly promoting a single product. It's very obvious that the reader is intended to go to GetFirefox.com and download Firefox 1.0. Most of the other ads are either brand awareness, or advertising many different things (multiple cell phone plans, PCs, or air travel destinations, for example).
So, congratulations to all involved: those who came up with the idea, promoted it, designed it, and made it happen. And, of course, to all who donated.
I must admit one concern, though, with this: "Are you fed up with your web browser?" Are most IE users fed up with their web browser? I wasn't, when I started using Mozilla (the suite, way back in the M days). I thought that IE was a fairly resonable browser: it was fast enough, stable enough, and worked well enough to allow me to surf the web. I had no major problems with it, although I recognize spyware and popups weren't such a big deal at the time. Anyhow, I was ideologically drawn to Mozilla because it was open source and because I hoped it would become a widespread alternative to IE that would keep HTML and related web technologies open. I used it in spite of the fact that it was, at that time, an inferrior browser in many respects.
But, as a once Mozilla user and now a Firefox user, I've seen these browsers grow into the superior alternatives. Now, when I have to use IE, I really am fed up with it. I've come to expect tabbed browsing, find-as-you-type, bookmark keywords, pop-up blocking, and a whole bunch of handy features provided by extensions.
So, I wonder whether most people who only know IE are actually fed up with it. Maybe there are people who are overwhelmed by the pop-ups and the spyware, but do they realize that their browser choice could prevent these problems?
I'm just not sure that this will strike a chord with many readers. If they're not actively fed up with IE, some might not even read past the first line.
I wonder if something more positive would have been more effective? Maybe something as simple as one of these:
"Do you want a better Web experience?" "Firefox makes the Web better." "The Web can be better."
I'm also not sure whether it's immediately clear why the first page is a list of names. I think it's remarkable that the ad was paid for by thousands of individuals with a message to send. If that were more clear, perhaps it would help catch the reader's attention.
Near, far, wherever you are I believe that the spin will go on One more sales hit the floor There's no choice but to spin And the spin will go on and on
I have written before that most of IBM's actions over many years seem to attacks against Sun. IBM is killing its own software offerings to try to control Java. IBM even partnered with MS to take standards away from Sun.
Would you mind backing those statement up, or at least being a little more concrete? I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
TFA gave the impression that that's how they're doing it:
He said that these labs increase the life of a computer by a few years, because 8-year-old computers can run software just as quickly as newer ones using the open source servers. "Things don't get old as fast," he said.
I found this article really inspiring. I'd really love work on something like that around here (Toronto, Canada). Does anyone know if anyone is working on this kind of project?
I'll be convinced IBM contributes as much as Sun to OSS when I see that IBM has GPLed AIX like Sun will GPL Solaris...
Funny, the latest I've heard was that Sun still isn't saying what license they plan to use for Solaris. Do you have a link to an article where Sun claims they will use the GPL? All I've heard from them is that they want to "take the model with Java and bring it to Solaris."
Personally, as a Linux user, I'm much interested in IBM's real contributions to the Linux kernel. Their intent is to make Linux capable of replacing AIX eventually.
I'm not just talking about mainframe and POWER ports, as an anonymous coward above suggested, either. Of course, we all know about JFS, NUMA, SMP scalability, and EVMS (the last of which wasn't accepted, in the end). IBM has also contributed work on ext2/3, IA-64, PCI hotplug, udev, USB, and a number of other projects.
...or that IBM has given a huge office solution like OpenOffice...
How many office solutions do we need? How about a huge software development solution like Eclipse, instead?
...or that IBM supports Gnome with code contribution/HIG...
Finally, let's not forget that it's IBM that is paying the legal bills that will prove that Linux is free of whatever UNIX intellectual property may still exist, while Sun has been pumping funds into SCO's war chest.
I'm baffled by most of Gosling's comments about RMS and the GPL. The aspect of the GPL that he seems to be remarking on with his "viral infection clause" comment is that it permits you to modify and redistribute the software licensed under it, provided the new work is also licensed under the GPL. Apparently, this is a "catch" -- a restriction of the GPL -- in comparison to the license used by Sun for the Java source.
The implication, then, is that not only does Sun's license permit you to modify and restribute Java, it permits you to do so under any license of your chosing.
I find this highly suspect, though I don't know for sure that it's untrue. If this is the case, why doesn't the FSF regard it as a Free Software license (although, like BSD, obviously not a Copyleft license)? Why hasn't the OSI certified it as an Open Source license? Why isn't it included in Debian?
My impression was that Sun's Java implementations were distributed under a look-but-don't-touch license. That is, while the source is provided, you are not permitted to modify and redistribute it. If this impression is incorrect, I'd really like to know, but if it isn't, then I'd have to say that Gosling is either quite ignorant about the GPL, or he's being deliberately misleading in his characterization of it.
Or you could not be totally combative, and maybe then she'll actually listen to your point of view.
I'm currently writing a letter in which I first reassure her of my support of Canadian artists and my desire to see their copyrights respected, then describe my concerns with her statement.
I talk about the potential of p2p as a new medium of communication and distribution and the vested interest of the content industries in having such channels outlawed. I remind her of how these multinational media conglomerates have wielded their considerable power via campaign contributions in the US, and of the bad legislation that has resulted. I contrast that with the much more cautious and considerate approach that has so far been taken in Canada, and urge her continue in that course.
I remind her that copyright law is a balance, and that it his her duty to protect the interests of the public in that balance. I implore her to become informed about both sides of the issue, suggesting she read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" and pointing her to the free download.
Finally, I thank her for her time, and express that this is a very important issue for me, one that will weigh heavily in whom I chose to support in future elections.
Gruber is an asshole in many ways, and this latest rant just confirms more of the same. He's quick to insult Linux users, demean the efforts of many people, and claim that Linux can't ever meet the standards of paid UI designers.
You're not kidding! Apart from insulting Linux users and developers, which at least relates to the point he thought he was trying to make, he had to throw in this little gem:
Hereafter referred to as A.T., because the name Aunt Tillie is so queer that it makes yours truly a tad queasy.
And that's where I stopped reading. I wonder if this bothers any of those people who find RMS so terribly abrasive.
You're trying to define stealing as getting something of value without paying for it. The dictionary, and the law, disagree with that definition.
A more accepted definition can be found here: "the taking of someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it."
Webster's adds that, "To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
When it comes to "stealing" music, copyright has everything to do with it. You're just copying data, which doesn't meet the definition of theft, above. No part of any property has been removed from its former position; no one will be deprived, permanently or otherwise, of the property; and you are not in the complete possession of the property. The only reason you might be committing a crime is if copyright forbids you from copying that data because an exclusive right to do so has been granted to its author.
The act of copyright infringement is fundamentally different from that of stealing. The use of the word "theft" to describe it is propaganda, pushed by special interests who would like to tie down and "own" every thought, idea, and piece of information possible. I reject it.
Finally, a very relevant plug for a some very valuable information that you may access for free: Lawrence Lessig's new book, Free Culture. I downloaded the PDF, but after reading the introduction, I bought the hard-cover.
Nonsense. Customers also foot the bill for EV1's servers, air-conditioning, security services, and so on. Should EV1 (or anyone else) be forced to disclose those costs? If not, why not? It's the same principle.
The servers serve Web pages. The air-conditioning stops the servers from overheating. And so on. What does this "IP license" do? Allegedly, it makes customers feel better, it prevents worrying.
Can you see the difference? Given that its value is, to be generous, questionable, I think it's quite reasonable for customers to ask just what is its cost.
What's more, some customers may feel that it's value is negative: that it only serves to fund SCO's courtroom antics. Mr. Marsh tried to deflect such criticism by claiming that "our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one," but it's impossible to evaluate that claim without knowing the amount of the "small fee."
Mr. Marsh owes his customers much more information than this. Specifically:
What price was paid for this "IP license"? A claim like "our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one" is totally unconvincing while the amount of the fee remains secret. Moreover, obviously customers will be indirectly footing the bill for this, so they need to be able to figure out just how much it's costing them.
Exactly what IP was licesnsed? Did Mr. Marsh in fact "license certain IP from SCO," or did he in fact license uncertain IP -- agreeing to their standard whatever-IP-may-or-may-not-be-in-there wording?
What are the terms of the licensing, and to what degree are customers protected? Since, he's claiming to have done this for the protection customers, he'd better tell them what their rights and obligations are. For example, are there any restrictions on their ability to access, modify, or compile Linux source code?
I hope that all of EV1's customers demand answers to these questions, as forcefully as necessary. They need this information to assess whether they are, in fact, better or worse off as a result of Mr. Marsh's decision.
"SCO claims that the sysv license they inherited in their acquisition of novell's ip gives them right to all derived implementations, the way the GPL does."
Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again.
The GPL cannot, and does not claim to, give the author of an original work any rights over the original portions of a derived work.
In this case, the original work is SysV, the derived work is AIX, and the original portions of the derived work are JFS, EVMS, etc. If SysV were licensed under the GPL, IBM would be required to also license AIX under the GPL. However, nothing would prevent IBM from taking JFS and EVMS code, and putting it into another piece of software with GPL-incompatible license.
Sun can have a place in the Eclipse foundation, but only if they are willing to develop an Eclipse-based product. Nobody is saying they have to completely dump NetBeans, but they have to have some sort of stake in Eclipse in order to have a say in its direction.
Apparently, Sun had extensive talks about joining Eclipse last summer, but in the end this condition was too much for them to accept. So, instead, they sent this letter saying, as I read it, "no hard feelings, and don't forget about us...please?"
Another difference you can't ignore is that SWT has been widely ported. With Motif, GTK2, Carbon, Photon, and Win32 ports, SWT runs on more platforms than Sun's own JRE.
As a result, it's easy to view SWT as a real contribution to Java, in the language's original spirit.
And the problem is that AWT is a lowest common denominator approach: if you can't do it natively on every platform, don't do it on any platform. Since that gives you very little to work with, Sun decided to try again and made Swing. As you describe, they reimplemented a whole widget set in Java.
So, before SWT, your choice was the inadequate AWT or the slow and ugly Swing. The fact that no one really seems to remember what a pure AWT application looks like tells us that most people chose Swing, as they wanted or needed the features.
Now, we can choose SWT, which is fast, featureful, portable, and looks great, too. Of course, there is some Write Once, Debug Everywhere involved. (Example: TableTree doesn't indent on GTK+ like it does everywhere else). But, as Eclipse has shown, that's manageable. Don't tell Sun, but you're never really going to get Write Once, Run Everywhere to work perfectly for UI's, with no debugging, anyway.
Neither testing nor unstable get security releases. Unstable is updated often enough that if there's a fix for stable, unstable is likely fixed already.
So, what's the deal with ssh? This is not meant to be a troll; I use Debian and I'm genuinely baffled. Unstable and testing are both still at 3.6.1p2-9, though a fix has been packported to stable for ages. Is this also a backport? What's the big delay on 3.7?
Much (not all) Slashdot (and pro-OSS) discussion never actually references sources, preferring to stick to anecdotal second hand knowledge - "Windows always crashes" etc.
And he is just as guilty as the worst us. In this one, he gives us this little gem: "These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about." I hope he's shared that with SCO's legal team; they could use insights like that!
He doesn't call zealots terrorists. He says that the nutcases are dangerous to the OSS cause, just as islamic terrorists are dangerous to moderate Islam - the nutcases get the press coverage and we all get tarred with the same brush. Take the DoS attack on SCO, for example. That didn't do anyone any good and gave the other side ammunition to use against the Linux community
Perhaps you missed the first sentence? "I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats." In his opinion, there is little difference.
Flaming, trolling, whatever you want to call it, it's not good journalism.
Slashdot Mirror
It's an interesting explanation, but I'm having a lot of trouble buying it.
My Myth box has a PS/2 keyboard connector, as well as several USB ports. I can easily connect a keyboard to it. If my remote control were to stop working for any reason, I'd still be able to control the system. I notice that the Alienware Media Center systems all have USB ports, too.
Given that they had set up a USB-based IR receiver with a powered USB booster, surely they were aware of the fact that relying on IR could be tricky. It's very difficult to believe that no one thought it might be a good idea to have some kind of backup input device that someone off stage could have used to kick off the damn slide show.
From the FA: "Sure, we could have had two Media Centers, but we wanted to show it all running off the same Media Center as a hub." This strikes me as classic misdirection. Like it would be utterly impossible to have one Media Center with two different input devices.
As I see it, either something more went wrong and this story was concocted to cover it up, or the whole team behind the presentation deserves to be fired for missing something so pitifully obvious.
I rather suspect the former.
I did enjoy watching Bill sit there all hunched over in his big cushy chair pecking away at the remote control. His plastic smile unwavering, even through Conan's "who's in charge of Mircosoft" comment. And then that weird comment about only having one remote control? No, Bill, it wouldn't be worse to have serveral remote controls, if they were for devices that actually *worked*.
I run Debian Stable on a very modern server, with >2GB RAM, Fusion-MPT SCSI, gigabit ethernet and all that good stuff. It's just a matter of using a newer kernel than Woody's default.
I want the distribution to be stable, but I don't mind keeping the kernel up to date myself. With make-kpkg, it's a snap to build Debian packages out of kernel.org tarballs and, on this machine, it just takes a few moments.
(And yes, if this really was a mission critical server, and not just a department build machine, I'd build and test my kernels elsewhere before deploying them, but that's not the point.)
Class action?
I bought a Rio Karma 10 days ago, so I must have paid this levy. I'd like to have it returned.
I just picked up a copy of the NYT from my local news stand. Seeing the PDF is one thing, but seeing it in the paper is *very* cool.
The full, two-page spread makes it stand out (there are a lot of ads in the paper!). It's also remarkable in that it's simply and clearly promoting a single product. It's very obvious that the reader is intended to go to GetFirefox.com and download Firefox 1.0. Most of the other ads are either brand awareness, or advertising many different things (multiple cell phone plans, PCs, or air travel destinations, for example).
So, congratulations to all involved: those who came up with the idea, promoted it, designed it, and made it happen. And, of course, to all who donated.
I must admit one concern, though, with this: "Are you fed up with your web browser?" Are most IE users fed up with their web browser? I wasn't, when I started using Mozilla (the suite, way back in the M days). I thought that IE was a fairly resonable browser: it was fast enough, stable enough, and worked well enough to allow me to surf the web. I had no major problems with it, although I recognize spyware and popups weren't such a big deal at the time. Anyhow, I was ideologically drawn to Mozilla because it was open source and because I hoped it would become a widespread alternative to IE that would keep HTML and related web technologies open. I used it in spite of the fact that it was, at that time, an inferrior browser in many respects.
But, as a once Mozilla user and now a Firefox user, I've seen these browsers grow into the superior alternatives. Now, when I have to use IE, I really am fed up with it. I've come to expect tabbed browsing, find-as-you-type, bookmark keywords, pop-up blocking, and a whole bunch of handy features provided by extensions.
So, I wonder whether most people who only know IE are actually fed up with it. Maybe there are people who are overwhelmed by the pop-ups and the spyware, but do they realize that their browser choice could prevent these problems?
I'm just not sure that this will strike a chord with many readers. If they're not actively fed up with IE, some might not even read past the first line.
I wonder if something more positive would have been more effective? Maybe something as simple as one of these:
"Do you want a better Web experience?"
"Firefox makes the Web better."
"The Web can be better."
I'm also not sure whether it's immediately clear why the first page is a list of names. I think it's remarkable that the ad was paid for by thousands of individuals with a message to send. If that were more clear, perhaps it would help catch the reader's attention.
I just bought it at International News at Front and Church.
What on the ad says "Hey IE user who is sick of IE, Firefox is a replacement for IE that works better?"
Did you miss the first page?
"Are you fed up with your web browser?
You're not alone. We want you to know that there is an alternative..."
Near, far, wherever you are
I believe that the spin will go on
One more sales hit the floor
There's no choice but to spin
And the spin will go on and on
I have written before that most of IBM's actions over many years seem to attacks against Sun. IBM is killing its own software offerings to try to control Java. IBM even partnered with MS to take standards away from Sun.
Would you mind backing those statement up, or at least being a little more concrete? I'm really not sure what you're talking about.
TFA gave the impression that that's how they're doing it:
I found this article really inspiring. I'd really love work on something like that around here (Toronto, Canada). Does anyone know if anyone is working on this kind of project?
I'll be convinced IBM contributes as much as Sun to OSS when I see that IBM has GPLed AIX like Sun will GPL Solaris...
Funny, the latest I've heard was that Sun still isn't saying what license they plan to use for Solaris. Do you have a link to an article where Sun claims they will use the GPL? All I've heard from them is that they want to "take the model with Java and bring it to Solaris."
Personally, as a Linux user, I'm much interested in IBM's real contributions to the Linux kernel. Their intent is to make Linux capable of replacing AIX eventually.
I'm not just talking about mainframe and POWER ports, as an anonymous coward above suggested, either. Of course, we all know about JFS, NUMA, SMP scalability, and EVMS (the last of which wasn't accepted, in the end). IBM has also contributed work on ext2/3, IA-64, PCI hotplug, udev, USB, and a number of other projects.
How many office solutions do we need? How about a huge software development solution like Eclipse, instead?
How about donating code to projects like Mozilla, Samba, and of course Apache (and more Apache)?
Finally, let's not forget that it's IBM that is paying the legal bills that will prove that Linux is free of whatever UNIX intellectual property may still exist, while Sun has been pumping funds into SCO's war chest.
I'm baffled by most of Gosling's comments about RMS and the GPL. The aspect of the GPL that he seems to be remarking on with his "viral infection clause" comment is that it permits you to modify and redistribute the software licensed under it, provided the new work is also licensed under the GPL. Apparently, this is a "catch" -- a restriction of the GPL -- in comparison to the license used by Sun for the Java source.
The implication, then, is that not only does Sun's license permit you to modify and restribute Java, it permits you to do so under any license of your chosing.
I find this highly suspect, though I don't know for sure that it's untrue. If this is the case, why doesn't the FSF regard it as a Free Software license (although, like BSD, obviously not a Copyleft license)? Why hasn't the OSI certified it as an Open Source license? Why isn't it included in Debian?
My impression was that Sun's Java implementations were distributed under a look-but-don't-touch license. That is, while the source is provided, you are not permitted to modify and redistribute it. If this impression is incorrect, I'd really like to know, but if it isn't, then I'd have to say that Gosling is either quite ignorant about the GPL, or he's being deliberately misleading in his characterization of it.
Or you could not be totally combative, and maybe then she'll actually listen to your point of view.
I'm currently writing a letter in which I first reassure her of my support of Canadian artists and my desire to see their copyrights respected, then describe my concerns with her statement.
I talk about the potential of p2p as a new medium of communication and distribution and the vested interest of the content industries in having such channels outlawed. I remind her of how these multinational media conglomerates have wielded their considerable power via campaign contributions in the US, and of the bad legislation that has resulted. I contrast that with the much more cautious and considerate approach that has so far been taken in Canada, and urge her continue in that course.
I remind her that copyright law is a balance, and that it his her duty to protect the interests of the public in that balance. I implore her to become informed about both sides of the issue, suggesting she read Lawrence Lessig's "Free Culture" and pointing her to the free download.
Finally, I thank her for her time, and express that this is a very important issue for me, one that will weigh heavily in whom I chose to support in future elections.
Gruber is an asshole in many ways, and this latest rant just confirms more of the same. He's quick to insult Linux users, demean the efforts of many people, and claim that Linux can't ever meet the standards of paid UI designers.
You're not kidding! Apart from insulting Linux users and developers, which at least relates to the point he thought he was trying to make, he had to throw in this little gem:
And that's where I stopped reading. I wonder if this bothers any of those people who find RMS so terribly abrasive.
You're trying to define stealing as getting something of value without paying for it. The dictionary, and the law, disagree with that definition.
A more accepted definition can be found here: "the taking of someone else's property with the intention of permanently depriving that person of it."
Webster's adds that, "To constitute theft there must be a taking without the owner's consent, and it must be unlawful or felonious; every part of the property stolen must be removed, however slightly, from its former position; and it must be, at least momentarily, in the complete possession of the thief."
When it comes to "stealing" music, copyright has everything to do with it. You're just copying data, which doesn't meet the definition of theft, above. No part of any property has been removed from its former position; no one will be deprived, permanently or otherwise, of the property; and you are not in the complete possession of the property. The only reason you might be committing a crime is if copyright forbids you from copying that data because an exclusive right to do so has been granted to its author.
The act of copyright infringement is fundamentally different from that of stealing. The use of the word "theft" to describe it is propaganda, pushed by special interests who would like to tie down and "own" every thought, idea, and piece of information possible. I reject it.
Finally, a very relevant plug for a some very valuable information that you may access for free: Lawrence Lessig's new book, Free Culture. I downloaded the PDF, but after reading the introduction, I bought the hard-cover.
Nonsense. Customers also foot the bill for EV1's servers, air-conditioning, security services, and so on. Should EV1 (or anyone else) be forced to disclose those costs? If not, why not? It's the same principle.
The servers serve Web pages. The air-conditioning stops the servers from overheating. And so on. What does this "IP license" do? Allegedly, it makes customers feel better, it prevents worrying.
Can you see the difference? Given that its value is, to be generous, questionable, I think it's quite reasonable for customers to ask just what is its cost.
What's more, some customers may feel that it's value is negative: that it only serves to fund SCO's courtroom antics. Mr. Marsh tried to deflect such criticism by claiming that "our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one," but it's impossible to evaluate that claim without knowing the amount of the "small fee."
Mr. Marsh owes his customers much more information than this. Specifically:
I hope that all of EV1's customers demand answers to these questions, as forcefully as necessary. They need this information to assess whether they are, in fact, better or worse off as a result of Mr. Marsh's decision.
"SCO claims that the sysv license they inherited in their acquisition of novell's ip gives them right to all derived implementations, the way the GPL does."
Bzzzt! Wrong. Try again.
The GPL cannot, and does not claim to, give the author of an original work any rights over the original portions of a derived work.
In this case, the original work is SysV, the derived work is AIX, and the original portions of the derived work are JFS, EVMS, etc. If SysV were licensed under the GPL, IBM would be required to also license AIX under the GPL. However, nothing would prevent IBM from taking JFS and EVMS code, and putting it into another piece of software with GPL-incompatible license.
Sun can have a place in the Eclipse foundation, but only if they are willing to develop an Eclipse-based product. Nobody is saying they have to completely dump NetBeans, but they have to have some sort of stake in Eclipse in order to have a say in its direction.
Apparently, Sun had extensive talks about joining Eclipse last summer, but in the end this condition was too much for them to accept. So, instead, they sent this letter saying, as I read it, "no hard feelings, and don't forget about us...please?"
Another difference you can't ignore is that SWT has been widely ported. With Motif, GTK2, Carbon, Photon, and Win32 ports, SWT runs on more platforms than Sun's own JRE.
As a result, it's easy to view SWT as a real contribution to Java, in the language's original spirit.
And the problem is that AWT is a lowest common denominator approach: if you can't do it natively on every platform, don't do it on any platform. Since that gives you very little to work with, Sun decided to try again and made Swing. As you describe, they reimplemented a whole widget set in Java.
So, before SWT, your choice was the inadequate AWT or the slow and ugly Swing. The fact that no one really seems to remember what a pure AWT application looks like tells us that most people chose Swing, as they wanted or needed the features.
Now, we can choose SWT, which is fast, featureful, portable, and looks great, too. Of course, there is some Write Once, Debug Everywhere involved. (Example: TableTree doesn't indent on GTK+ like it does everywhere else). But, as Eclipse has shown, that's manageable. Don't tell Sun, but you're never really going to get Write Once, Run Everywhere to work perfectly for UI's, with no debugging, anyway.
SCO's claims against IBM have nothing to do with copyright. They're purely contractual.
IBM's counter-claims do. If SCO's case is dismissed, IBM's case continues. And focus will be squarely on the GPL, and how SCO is in violation of it.
Neither testing nor unstable get security releases. Unstable is updated often enough that if there's a fix for stable, unstable is likely fixed already.
So, what's the deal with ssh? This is not meant to be a troll; I use Debian and I'm genuinely baffled. Unstable and testing are both still at 3.6.1p2-9, though a fix has been packported to stable for ages. Is this also a backport? What's the big delay on 3.7?
Those are good., but I don't think you can get much funnier than this one.
Much (not all) Slashdot (and pro-OSS) discussion never actually references sources, preferring to stick to anecdotal second hand knowledge - "Windows always crashes" etc.
And he is just as guilty as the worst us. In this one, he gives us this little gem: "These Zealots have been the primary reason that I've come to believe SCO will likely win its lawsuit -- because if the Zealots are lying about facts I know to be true, they must be lying about facts I don't know about." I hope he's shared that with SCO's legal team; they could use insights like that!
He doesn't call zealots terrorists. He says that the nutcases are dangerous to the OSS cause, just as islamic terrorists are dangerous to moderate Islam - the nutcases get the press coverage and we all get tarred with the same brush. Take the DoS attack on SCO, for example. That didn't do anyone any good and gave the other side ammunition to use against the Linux community
Perhaps you missed the first sentence? "I have a hard time seeing the Linux Zealots as any different from terrorists because of the nature of their threats." In his opinion, there is little difference.
Flaming, trolling, whatever you want to call it, it's not good journalism.
Maybe good as a competitive move against IBM, but bad for Linux and good for SCO...
HP's Actions Support SCO's Position That Linux is not Free
Yay, HP! You've handed SCO an opportunity to spread more FUD. Do you think we'll be hearing from Ms. DiDio soon?
Gee, I wonder why IBM didn't do this.